Interesting discussion
 

There is an interesting discussion taking place about possible cheating with illegal drugs and trainers defending themselves.

Click http://www.valentoraces.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=85
if you want to chime in.

Thanks for posting the link. Racing certainly needs drug standards, certified labs for testing, and stiff punishment for offenders. Hopefully we are getting closer to a level, safe, playing field across the country.

I've always said that I refuse to come to a conclusion on this topic until I've heard (or at least read) words that may or may not be from Jamie Ness.

I almost have to get a log on to start **** with Ness.

Ok, I just did :)

I would love to see Ness respond to your question, but somehow, I doubt he will answer it directly. The other defender on the thread named Webgems, or something like that, is Ness's biggest owner so of course he is going to defend.

I'd like to believe his hard work, reading the form, watching replays and training method are the keys to his success, but as you said, the instant move-ups can't possibly be "training methods". Ask Cannon how much a horse can be "trained" in the 7-14 days after a claim. Then you get the move up in class and bam, a easy winner.

Another question for Chuck:

How proprietary are training methods, are there really legitimate "secret" things some trainers do that others know nothing about? In other words, why can't a guy who is getting ridiculous results, and being accused of nefarious methods, just come out and say, this is what I do as far as training methods are concerned?
Because, it would seem to me, that this would be the best way to answer the critics, with specific, concrete examples of what is being done with individual horses.

Scott Lake told Andy Beyer his success was from NOT training them after he claimed them. This guy says that his success is from "getting them fit" which I would take as training them harder. LOL. There may be a rare occasion that you find something out of order like a bad tooth, bad shoe, abcess, ulcers, ect. that can turn around quickly. I doubt that 41% of his claims have such issues.

We all train on the same track, with the same help, feeding pretty much the same feeds, using the same vets. There are no "secret" training methods.

My question to the 'great' Jamie Ness.....
 

As Bigs said, I doubt I am getting a response

Well said.

I'm not sure why these guys feel the need to speak out and proclaim their innocence. When they do speak on their own behalf, they just sound silly.

Just shut up and keep winning 50% of your races until the test man catches up to you.

I had heard that he about s*** his pants when he found out that they were talking about freezing some samples at Tampa

So did Tampa:
1) Freeze some samples?
2) If so, were those samples tested?
3) If yes, what were the results?

1) Don't know
2) Don't know
3) Don't know

I would guess not since they've been closed for two months and there has been no word yet.

I would think that if Tampa wanted to "catch" Ness with a positive, they would have taken the samples and tested them. Even though the track has been closed, samples would have sent to a lab for testing and a report would have been issued. Since there is no report, I would come to the conclusion "these samples" were probably not taken.

They can test blood till the pigs fly and they won't find the good stuff that some of these guys are using. At least they won't find it yet....

I dont know if a racetrack can "freeze" samples because they arent the ones doing the testing, the state of Florida is. Though the Tampa is proactive on many fronts i dont know if they are prepared or even able to do this. And in the area of freezing samples, it is not as easy as it sounds because they still have to know what they are looking for in order to find it.

Question for anyone:

What are the testing procedures for tracks like Belmont, Hollywood, Churchill versus tracks like Tampa, Canterbury, Penn National?

So what's the answer, make accusations that Ness is a cheater until technology catches up with him?

Ness went on the other forum and gave an explanation for his success. Okay, until proven otherwise, it is what it is. Just maybe, the man is a very good trainer. I don't know the man, nor anyone who is affliated with him, but his record speaks for itself.

I hope he does respond to your post on the other forum, but in reality, I don't know what he could say that would cause you to have a different opinion of him.

:rolleyes:

there was an interesting piece on Real Sports about this cycling team that in an effort to attract sponsorship, randonly tests their cyclists like once a week. Since cycling is a mess with drugs (much like horseracing) the sport is on the verge of collapse. No companies want to be associated with cheaters and drug users thus they've experienced a severe decline in sponsorship dollars.
So this team decided to go overboard proactively in testing to try and insure the sponsors would be safe entrusting them to police themselves.

The interesting point of the story was that the first thing they determined was there would be no way to effectively detect every drug, much less designer drugs and desinger masking agents, so rather they test overall blood chemistry and note any major changes in the chemical makeup of the individual cyclist - anything that would signal a change in chemisrty that improved performance would be considered a positive, even though they have no idea what they are positive for

See below what another trainer said, one that I respect, in regards to these crazy moveups

Here is what I know, I know that statistically, he is blowing normal achievable numbers out of the water with racing stock that has PREVIOUS FORM. This racing stock is showing HUGE improvements first out for Ness, and it continues, until he 'squeezes the lemon dry' and then he dumps it to someone willing to take the risk.

This is where it gets confusing for me. People that claim horses off guys like Ness. Are they really naive (look it up Tom) enough to think that:

1. They can move the horse up even more

or

B. They horse will maintain its current form after the claim

I thought I spelled it right when I used it earlier....

Hell...I may have spelled it wrong. I just wasnt sure you knew the definition.:D

oh....I know what it means

It is just like claiming off Catalano, short term, you can get 1 or two races out of them (Magana does this all the time) but long term, they are running at the bottom in only a matter of time

But am I mistaken in thinking that this is just a losing propostition in the long run?

Understood. I respect and agree with most of what Cannon Shell writes. That being said, I still think that Ness in entitled to the "benefit of the doubt" until proven otherwise.

...and Marion Jones swore under oath that she never took illegal drugs.....until she was caught. Just because he says so, doesn't mean we have to believe him.

There is no answer. As you say, it is what it is, but we can have opinions on the matter.

Mine just happens to be 180 degrees from yours.

No, but not many people will claim on for 10k off Catalano, run and win back at 10k, and then drop to 5k, which is what I would do.

If I had a bankroll at Arlington, I would claim off Catalano, run back in 14 days at the same level (I can't remember what the jail rules are here), hopefully run well, if he does run well and wins, drop to 7500 or 5k and be done with it.

I think someone just did this, and Liane Davis took the bait,Tattooed Lady was the horses name, and I doubt this horse sees the track again.

Catalano had this hrose first run at Arlington, horse won for 15k, then dropped to 10k and got claimed, the new owner ran back for 10k and ran 2nd, they dropped to 7500 and Liane Davis took the horse, and the horse just ran last for 7500 on 7/3

How long do the affects of intense Hyperbaric treatments last? Publicly, this is what they are claiming is driving their success as their horses are basically living in Rivelli's chamber until they run. Now, I'm done defending their success, but this could have something to do with it if the horses are subjected to many sessions in the chamber and then nothing off the claim.

I have even heard him say "run out of the tank"

Again..I'm sure there is more, but The Chamber is proven to be beneficial

Fair enough and I do respect your opinion. Though, what did you expect Ness to write, "I get a 41% win-rate off a claim because my horses are juiced?"

There just seems to be a prevailing mentality that "if a trainer is successful, he must be a cheater". In Ness' case, it hasn't been proven, so for now, let's give the man his due.

The procedures are similar. The labs that test for smaller tracks are not inferior to the bigger ones and in fact in many cases are the same. The difference is the amount of substances tested for. Even the bigger tracks (states) are usually not testing for more than 10-20 things and on some occasions less then that. Considering the amount of drugs available it is a drop in the bucket. Supertesting has been done for stakes at Keeneland and those tests are usually looking for 400 or more drugs and as far as I know there have been no positives. In a lot of cases positives are closer to speeding tickets than real crimes. When you hear Larry Jones has not had a positive in 25 years you have to take that in the context of what it really means. Meaning that under the old rules in KY which the majority of his career was spent under, it was almost impossible to get a positive test because most everything was legal and hardly had any withdrawl. The things that cause horses to magically improve and get trainers at 40% arent things that are widely known and tested for.

So are Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. Do you believe them? They haven't failed a test either. I dont think anyone shouldnt be skeptical about these guys who seemingly appear out of nowhere and suddenly do extraordinary things. If they are clean than they will have long successful careers. If not they go the way of Juan Serey, Oscar, Preston King, and many others.

Thanks, I appreciate your insight.

The "no positives" at Keeneland is encouraging.

As one who is directly affected by this issue, where do you see the industry going concerning testing? Also, will the industry and/or labs ever be able to test for everything that "needs" to be tested for?

I think that the awareness levels about testing has dramatically improved. The fact that the issues are being seriously considered is a positive step. I dont think that they are necessarily going about it very effectively but things are better than they were just a few years ago. That being said there is just so much to do, so much research that is not being funded or done especially in the area of accurate and effetive withdrawl times and realistic levels and most importantly in areas of the currently undectable drugs.

I have always been a proponent of greater investigative tactics as the key to winning this battle between the labs and the new drugs. Balco's drugs werent discovered by testing, they were uncovered by an IRS agent's investigation. The amount of money spent on investigation in this sport is an embarassment.

I haven't followed the issue with Clemens or Bonds close enough to have an opinion, but no positive = no guilt. But that leads to the other issue of whether or not baseball was/is testing for the "right" drugs to show an illegal positive, which I guess is the same issue that we have with racing.

Yes, be skeptical if you like, but those who scorn a man's good name without facts serve no purpose.

I hope Ness is clean and has a long successful career (and you too). The sport needs positive stories and with Ness, so far so good.

Ness has a fairly cheap day rate - I'm curious if it's true that he rarely uses the vet as he claims.

I assumed his vet bills might be gigantic.

Maybe he's just moving them up with good old fashioned hay, oats, and water bought on the cheap with big volume discounts.